Escambo

Not just Reagan. Let's talk about the Prescription Drug plan that Bush 2 gave us. I guess Cop and Balco don't have a problem with that one...

So then you really didn't pay any increased tax?

I call bullshit. There is no reason whatsoever to pull your money out of the market. Not at this level of growth, so, either your too stupid to keep your money in the game, or you really didn't have any capital gains income to tax. Which is it?

Yeah, those fucking poor people, right? It's much better just to bomb the shit out of women and children, than to feed the poor citizens of our country.

Get da fuq outta here. He hit a bad shot, and did the wrist grab thing, grimacing, now he is mopping around. What a fuk.

You do realize, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were brought to you by the GOP costs you more in your lifetime than any tax increase the Obama administration has come up with, you understand this, right?

What tax has Obama imposed that has affected you personally?

Okay, fuckwad. Tell me. What part of your life PERSONALLY is worse since Obama took office. If you're invested in the market, you are making tons of cash. So, do tell. What makes you want to vote GOP?

Just give them the title now. Notre Dame won't keep it within 10.

No idea how reputable Chat Sports is Here is their report: http://www.chatsports.com/cleveland-browns/a/EXCLUSIVE-Browns-Eagles-Discussing-Trade-Involving-Johnny-Manziel-And-Sam-Bradford-10-27-1775 "According to a source very close to an agent involved in the trade talks, the Cleveland Browns and Philadelphia Eagles have engaged in multiple discussions to send Browns QB Johnny Manziel, who is currently in rehab, and draft picks, to the Eagles in exchange for Eagles QB Sam Bradford, who was recently acquired via trade from the St. Louis Rams."

Okay, that video was funny was hell.

Keep them? None of them even offered Kaminsky. They may want to do a better job at actually being able to identify which kids will develop.

That's where I am at. WWE stuff here boys.

Now I am confused. Our debate started because you called Kentucky one of the 5-10 greatest teams (Pro or college) in the last 20 years. Now you call them "evenly matched" with Wisconsin. I would think a college team that is considered to be one of the greatest assembled over 20 years--- they should be obviously better than this Wisconsin team. Calling them evenly matched kind of reduces your "one of the greatest teams in the last 20 years" to a pile of rubble, don't you think? When I look at the truly GREAT teams, like the Bulls--- the Bulls had no peer during their run. None. That is what I would expect of this Kentucky team to be considered "great". But even you now admit-- they are "evenly matched" with the Wisconsin's and Duke's of college basketball.

Is this real? Or are you guys fucking around? Deem, did he really send you pennies? Unrolled, or rolled?

That's the disconnect. You are using the line as the be-all/end-all of who is the better team. Vegas does get it wrong. I think you simply have too much of a rooting Kentucky interest to admit Wisconsin is just a better team than Kentucky. Wisconsin has the most efficient offense in college basketball over the last 15 years. This is not about "one-game sample size". This is a very good Wisconsin team being better than a very good Kentucky team. Wisconsin is not a good match up for Kentucky. They have the size to compete on the glass, and they have the shooters to hurt them from the perimeter. And I don't think you could find anyone who would think Calipari can outcoach Ryan from the bench.

So, a team that you consider to be one of the greatest teams in the last 20 years... has an obvious weakness in rebounding the ball? And Wisconsin led the country in offensive efficiency, so were you really surprised they would score?

Impossible? You mean like last year? Not sure if you typed that or Pomeroy did. But last year, Wichita State and their 35-1 record carried a negative luck rating. So, either Kentucky is a contradiction of that thought, or Wichita State is.

Oh my god, seriously? I watched a guy do that on a Final Four bet a few years ago. Gave the guy 500 dollars in pennies in a gym bag.

Another observation, Pomeroy uses a "luck" factor, and this Kentucky team had the highest "luck" factor of any team in this history of Pomeroy's rankings, giving this team a value of +.44. No team is even close to that figure. So, per Pomeroy--- this Kentucky team is also the luckiest #1 ranked team he has ever had in his rankings.

There are plenty of squares left for the Heritage Contest. When one fills up, Heritage just fires up another one. They will generate you a square right up until cut off time.

And? Oregon was a 6.5 favorite over Ohio State, did you watch that game and come away thinking Oregon was the better team? Wisconsin outrebounded Kentucky by 12. That is not a fluke. They owned Kentucky on the glass.

If we're discussing if Kentucky had a good season, then I would agree with you. But when you are talking about being among the 5 greatest teams in the last 20 years-- then yes, you have to have a championship on your belt. It is an absolute. It is ridiculous to even suggest otherwise. It's like calling Sergio Garcia the greatest golfer in the last 15 years without having won a major. This current Kentucky team, at the end of the day----- did not get it done. And, Wisconsin winning was not a fluke. Wisconsin is the better team. They are fundamentally a better team than Kentucky is, and they have the better game day coach. And I am sure as hell not going to call this Wisconsin team as one of the greatest in the last 20 years.

Kinger watch this ESPN docu about it..... [video=youtube;TJYXgMigfpo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJYXgMigfpo